'jm^^ 


G.H.  Schodde 


Problems  of 
Old  Testament 
Discussion 


mt 


'%A 


n 


'■1. '  1  '&' 


BSII60 
.S36 


BSI(60 
.S36 


1 


G.H.   Schodde 


Problems  of 
Old  Testament 
Discussion 


'■%.:M- 


^/\ 


>^    335  'O^ 

MAP  1  ^  1926 


jmbus,  O. 

the  past 
than  the 
irrepres- 
aUsm  on 
-  sense  of 
;he  reUg- 
-igin  and 
in  be  ex- 
agencies 
has  been 
■ch.    Ac- 
has  been 
tance  not 
damental 
ssions  of 
isent  Old 
Dyed  the 
in  the  in- 
tament  it 
;haracter, 
criptures, 
'estament 
doctrine, 
Christian 
Kuenen, 
)n  of  the 
rt  or  por- 
lan,  could 
11  authen- 
istorically 


#' 


B!S 


1887.]  Problems  of  Old  Testament  Discussiofi.   /\v*     335  '^ 

(  ,  MAR  1  8  1926' 

1    ^K         /   O^^^C^iP-^^      ^^<S 


U^c^ 


ARTICLE  II. 

PROBLEMS  QfF  OLD  TESTAMENT  DISCUSSION. 

By  Prof.  George  H.'Schodde,  Ph.  D.,  Capital  University,  Columbus,  O. 

A  combination  of  causes  have  conspired  during  the  past 
decade,  or  more,  to  make  the  Old  Testament  rather  than  the 
New,  the  chief  arena  of  theological  controversy.  The  irrepres- 
sible conflict  of  modern  theology  between  supernaturalism  on 
the  one  hand  and  rationalism  on  the  other,  in  the  wider  sense  of 
these  words ;  or,  in  other  words,  of  the  principle  that  the  relig- 
ion and  revelation  of  the  Bible  are  divine  in  their  origin  and 
character,  and,  on  the  contrary,  that  these  must  and  can  be  ex- 
plained only  as  the  resultants  of  natural  and  human  agencies 
and  factors — this  conflict  in  our  own  day  and  date  has  been 
transferred  into  the  department  of  Old  Testament  research.  Ac- 
cordingly the  animated  and  ever  bitter  debate  that  has  been 
carried  on  and  is  still  being  carried  on,  has  an  importance  not 
only  for  the  problems  immediately  involved,  but  is  fundamental 
for  Biblical  science  as  such  and  for  the  faith  and  confessions  of 
the  Church.  If  radicalism  can  gain  the  day  in  the  present  Old 
Testament  discussions,  it  has  thereby  virtually  destroyed  the 
foundations  of  the  Christian  faith  and  Church.  For  in  the  in- 
terpretation, or  rather  misinterpretation  of  the  Old  Testament  it 
seeks  to  establish  hypotheses  concerning  the  origin,  character, 
and  development  of  the  religion  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures, 
which,  if  once  accepted  as  correct,  can  in  the  New  Testament 
also,  and  hence  in  the  whole  complex  of  Christian  doctrine, 
analyze  into  nothingness  all  the  divine  elements  of  the  Christian 
faith.  If  the  naturalistic  scheme  of  Graf,  Wellhausen,  Kuenen, 
and  others,  according  to  which  they  make  the  religion  of  the 
Old  Testament  a  purely  natural  product  and  in  no  part  or  por- 
tion a  revelation  from  a  source  higher  than  what  is  human,  could 
not  be  refuted  and  shown  to  be  in  antagonism  with  well  authen- 
ticated facts,  then  too  the  New  Testament,  which  historically 


c/ 


336  Problems  of  Old  Testament  Discussion.  [July 

and  theologically,  according  to  the  clear  statements  of  Christ 
and  the  New  Testament  writers,  stands  upon  the  foundation  of 
the  Old,  would  with  its  foundation  crumble  to  pieces.  It  is  this 
feature  of  general  and  fundamental  importance  that  has  awak- 
ened for  the  Old  Testament  discussions  of  our  day  such  a  wide 
spread  interest  among  clear-seeing  men  even  if  they  are  not 
specialists  in  this  field.  These  considerations  make  it  plain  why 
the  Old  rather  than  the  New  Testament  is  the  cynosure  of  all 
eyes  in  the  theological  world.* 

*It  may  be  that  this  sentence  requires  some  limitation.  Just  at  pres- 
ent the  critical  discussions  in  the  New  Testament  department  are  being 
revived  and  advanced  views  are  being  taken  with  more  assurance  than 
has  been  the  case  at  any  time  since  the  Tiibingen  school  of  Baur  and 
Strauss  was  compelled  to  retire  before  the  counter-charge  of  conserva- 
tive and  orthodox  scholars.  In  fact,  comparing  the  New  Testament 
literature  of  1886  with  that  of  the  Old  Testament,  we  must  say  that 
negative  criticism  has  been  more  active  in  the  former  than  in  the  latter. 
Whether  this  only  happened  to  be  the  case  in  1886,  or  indicates  a  turn 
in  the  debate,  remains  yet  to  be  seen.  Two  new  Introductions  to  the 
New  Testament  have  appeared,  one  by  Weiss,  of  Berlin,  with  some  con- 
servative results  scarcely  expected  from  so  prominent  a  representative 
of  mediating  theology  ;  another  from  Holtzmann,  which  has  already 
reached  a  second  edition,  and  which  is  so  "advanced"  that  it  has  left 
truth  out  of  sight  altogether,  making  quite  a  tabula  rasa  of  traditional 
views  and  accepting  little  as  authentic  in  the  New  Testament  except  the 
famous  four  Pauline  Epistles.  The  greatest  stir  in  this  field  has  been 
made  by  the  History  of  Apostolic  Times  {Das  Apostolische  Zeitalter  der 
Chrisilichen  Kirche),  by  C.  Weizacker,  the  successor  of  Baur,  in  Tiib- 
ingen. While  not  quite  so  radical  as  his  predecessor,  he  reaches  con- 
clusions almost  equally  subversive  of  the  truth  of  history  and  revela- 
tion. Holtsten,  of  Heidelberg,  has  published  a  new  work  on  the  syn- 
optic gospels,  with  results  that  harmonize  thoroughly  with  the  old  and 
refuted  ideas  of  Baur.  Does  this  mean  a  modern  revival  of  the  Tiib- 
ingen criticism,  just  as  the  Wellhausen-Kuenen  school  is  virtually  a  re- 
production of  the  old  and  neglected  views  of  George  and  Vatke?  This 
note  must  not  be  understood  as  saying  that  the  critics  had  not  been  at 
work  on  the  New  Testament  also  during  the  past  few  years.  In  fact, 
they  have  been  hard  at  work,  notably  on  the  problem  of  the  literary 
origin  of  the  three  gospels  ;  but  the  discussions  had  been  able  to  attract 
only  the  attention  of  the  specialists,  being  overshadowed  as  far  as  the 
general  public  was  concerned  by  the  Old  Testament  problems.  It  may 
be  that  the  two  Testaments  will  divide  the  attention  of  the  public. 


1887.]  Problems  of  Old  Testament  Discussion.  337 

In  American  circles  also  this  controversy  has  attracted  more 
attention  than  had  been  given  to  the  contests  of  European  critics 
heretofore.  The  ups  and  downs  of  advanced  criticism  in  Europe 
had  scarcely  been  even  reported  to  the  American  public.  It 
was  not  the  Robertson  Smith  case  alone  that  made  this  debate  a 
burning  question  for  America  also,  although  this  was  the  outward 
occasion  for  the  outbreak  of  the  controversy  in  our  midst  also. 
The  theology  of  Germany  has  for  decades  back  become  a  more 
and  more  potent  factor  in  the  formation  of  theological  thought 
in  America ;  nor  has  it  always,  or  even  generally  been  the  best 
of  German  theology,  older  or  modern,  which  has  exercised  this 
power.  A  large  number  of  the  younger  American  teachers  of 
theology  have  been  sitting  at  the  feet  of  the  famous  professors  in 
the  German  Universities,  and  brought  over  with  them  from  the 
Fatherland  both  the  good  and  the  bad.  While  it  is  a  matter  of 
congratulation  that  so  many  young  Americans  seek  the  impetus 
and  encouragement  given  them  by  the  German  schools,  it  is  to 
deplored  that  so  many  go  there  unprepared  and  not  sufficiently 
ripe  in  heart  and  mind  to  be  able  to  prove  all  things  and  keep 
that  which  is  good  ;  nor  do  they  as  a  rule,  stay  long  enough  to 
understand  even  the  theological  tendencies  in  Germany.  It  is 
to  some  extent  owing  to  this  that  the  Old  Testament  discussions 
in  our  midst  have  assumed  a  more  or  less  crude  and  fragmentary 
shape.  On  the  other  hand,  it  must  be  stated  that  a  great  deal 
of  the  controversy  against  Old  Testament  criticism  is  born  of 
ignorance  and  blind  zeal.  Especially  does  the  religious  press 
often  consider  it  its  privilege  to  condemn  before  it  has  gone  to 
the  trouble  of  examining  into  the  merits  of  the  cause  it  criticises. 
Then  what  has  not  been  brought  over  from  Germany  by  young 
students  has  been  scattered  by  the  translations  of  German  works. 
It  is  true  that  the  majority  of  these  works  represent  either  the 
confessional  school  or  the  more  orthodox  of  the  mediating  theo- 
logians, yet  the  radical  critics  also  have  found  translators  and 
readers.  These  and  similar  causes  have  united  to  bring  prob- 
l  lems  to  our  doors  of  which  otherwise  we  might  have  only  heard 
vague  rumors.     But  as  they  are  here,  and  have  come  to  stay. 


V 


This  is  all  the  more  probable  as  virtually  the  same  problems  are  involved 

in  both. 


338  Problems  of  Old  Testament  Discussion.  [July 

and  are  exerting  a  strong  influence  on  the  thought  of  the  day 
and  probably  will  exert  a  still  stronger  influence  in  the  future, 
it  is  well  for  every  intelligent  Christian  to  secure  as  clear  a  view 
as  possible  of  the  questions  involved,  and  thus  be  able  intelli- 
gently and  justly  to  take  his  position  over  against  these  prob- 
lems and  their  real  or  pretended  results.  It  is  for  this  reason 
chiefly  that  we  propose  here  to  give  a  bird's  eye  view  of  the 
controversy,  having  in  mind  especially  the  needs  of  those  who 
have  not  had  the  time  or  inclination  to  follow  out  the  intricacies 
of  the  labryrinth  of  Old  Testament  criticism.  The  article  is 
then  not  to  be  a  new  contribution  to  the  solution  of  the  problem, 
but  merely  a  resume  of  what  has  been  done  and  what  is  further 
attempted. 

In  the  nature  of  the  case  the  Old  Testament  discussions  will 
fall  into  three  divisions,  namely,  lower  criticism,  higher  criticism, 
and  exegesis  proper.  The  ultimate  aim  of  all  Biblical  science 
is  the  interpretation  of  the  Biblical  text,  the  elucidation  of  the 
word  of  revelation,  the  drawing  out  of  the  truth  which  God  has 
placed  in  the  words  spoken  by  the  prophets  and  apostles.  To 
do  this  three  things  are  necessary ;  namely,  first,  we  must  have 
the  exact  words  as  they  were  spoken  or  written  by  the  Biblical 
authors,  and  the  process  of  attaining  these  is  called  lower  or 
textual  criticism ;  secondly,  we  must  learn  everything  that  can 
contribute  to  an  understanding  of  this  authentic  text,  i.  e.,  we 
must  know,  if  possible,  all  about  the  author  of  a  book,  the  time 
of  its  composition,  the  historical  circumstances  that  surrounded 
its  composition,  its  character  and  history  as  a  literary  work,  &c., 
&c.,  and  with  this  knowledge  at  our  command  seek  to  develop 
the  meaning  which  the  author  under  these  surroundings  had 
put  into  the  text;  which  process  is  called  higher,  or  sometimes, 
historical  criticism ;  thirdly,  the  interpretation  proper  must  then 
take  place,  which  is  called  the  exegesis  of  a  passage  or  chapter 
or  book.  This  natural  division  of  the  subject  will  give  us  the 
divisions  for  the  discussion  of  the  Old  Testament  problems,  for 
they  have  not  been  confined  to  any  one  of  the  three  or  to  any 
two  of  them. 

The  first  point  then  is  that  of  lower  or  textual  criticism.  KV. 
interpretation  is  bootless  unless  we  have,  as  near  as  possible, 


1887.]  Problems  of  Old  Testament  Discussion.  339 

the  verba  ipsissima  of  the  author  under  consideration.  The  ob- 
ject of  exegesis  being  to  extract  the  meaning  of  the  words  of 
another,  the  first  prerequisite  is  to  have  these  words  in  the  form 
in  which  they  were  originally  spoken  or  written.  If  any  addi- 
tions have  been  made  by  another  hand,  these  must  be  cut  out ; 
if  any  omissions  are  found,  they  must  be  supplied,  if  possible ; 
if  any  changes  of  any  kind  have  been  made  in  the  text  itself, 
these  must,  if  possible,  be  rectified  and  the  text  restored  to  its 
original  character.  Classical  philology  has  for  centuries  been 
engaged  in  this  species  of  critical  work.  The  acumen  of  the 
shrewdest  minds  has  been  devoted  to  the  examination  of  the 
manuscripts  of  Homer,  Zenophon,  Thucydides,  Cicero,  Caesar, 
and  other  Latin  and  Greek  authors,  in  order  to  restore  to  their 
original  shape  and  form  the  literary  remains  of  these  classical 
writers.  Out  of  the  thousands  of  variants  found  in  the  different 
manuscripts,  and  with  the  aid  of  methodic  and  rational  hermen- 
eutical  principles,  critics  have  patiently  labored  on  this  text- 
critical  work,  with  the  result,  that  we  undoubtedly  have  the 
texts  of  the  authors  in  a  more  authentic  and  original  form  than 
the  scholars  of  previous  generations  could  boast  of. 

A  similar  method,  only  even  more  searchingly,  has  been  ap- 
plied to  the  New  Testament  text.  In  the  scores  of  manuscripts 
of  the  Christian  Scriptures  the  number  of  variants  of  all  kinds 
found  reaches,  according  to  the  excellent  authority  of  Dr.  Scrive- 
ner, the  enormous  sum  of  150,000.*  Of  these,  however,  only 
about  400  materially  affect  the  sense.  The  origin  of  these  vari- 
ants is  not  difficult  to  understand.  We  have  none  of  the  origi- 
nal copies  of  the  New  Testament  books ;  the  autographic  copies 
of  the  evangelists  and  apostle  have  been  lost.  Our  oldest  manu- 
scripts date  probably  from  the  fourth  century,  namely  the  Vati- 
canus  and  the  Sinaiticus.  In  copying  and  re-copying  the  New 
Testament  writings,  error  after  error  naturally  crept  in,  error  of 
sight,  of  hearing,  &c.,  &c.  Tregelles  classifies  the  variations  as 
omissions,  additions,  and  substitutions  of  words  or  phrases. 
I  For  our  purpose  it  will  suffice  to  make  note  simply  of  the  fact, 

'L     *Cf .  on  the  whole  subject  of  New  Testament  Textual  criticism,  Schaff's 
I  Companion  to  the  Greek  Testament.     1883,  p.  171  sqq. 


340  Problems  of  Old  Testament  Discussion.  [July 

that  these  variants  do  exist,  and  hence  of  the  necessity  of  text- 
ual criticism  to  pick  out  from  among  these  1 50,000  variants  those 
readings  which,  from  current  principles  of  criticism,  we  have 
reason  to  believe  to  have  been  the  original  words  of  the  writers. 
Simply  taking  the  text  of  this  or  that  manuscript  and  pronounc- 
ing it  the  Textus  Receptus  was  easy  enough  in  an  age  when  men 
did  not  study  these  problems,  and  did  not  do  their  own  thinking 
in  regard  to  the  New  Testament  text.  But  now  the  work  is 
more  difficult,  and  the  efforts  of  Tischendorf,  Tregelles,  and 
Westcott  and  Hort,  show  that  a  text  fully  acceptable  to  all  has 
not  yet  been  established,  although  the  tendency  toward  agree- 
ment is  greater  than  ever. 

In  regard  to  the  Old  Testament  the  problem  stood  and  stands 
practically  as  it  does  in  the  New.  The  centuries  between  the 
autograph  of  the  original  writers  and  the  earliest  manuscripts 
in  our  possession  are  considerably  more  than  they  are  between 
Matthew's  day  and  the  Vaticanus  or  Sinaiticus,  and  consequently 
the  chances  for  errors  to  creep  into  the  text  through  mistake  or 
carelessness  of  copyists  was  all  the  greater,  or  at  least  would 
seem  to  be  so.  The  facts  in  regard  to  the  New  Testament  have 
plainly  shown  that  although  God  has  inspired  the  writers  to  pen 
the  truth,  he  did  not  in  a  miraculous  manner  preserve  the  origi- 
nal form  of  these  writings  and  protect  them  against  the  same 
fate  which  the  writings  of  other  ancient  authors  were  subject  to 
in  the  course  of  centuries.  The  same  must  be  said  to  be  the 
case  in  regard  to  the  Old  Testament.  It,  as  little  as  the  New, 
has  been  exempt  from  those  vicissitudes  to  which  all  the  wri- 
tings of  antiquity  were  heirs.  We  need  not  hesitate  to  say  that 
in  the  present  shape  of  the  Old  Testament  there  are  corruptions 
in  the  text.  The  word  "corruptions"  sounds  harsh,  and  seems 
to  convey  the  idea  of  intentional  change  on  the  part  of  the 
copyist  The  technical  meaning  of  the  word  in  Biblical  criti- 
cism is  however  of  a  more  harmless  nature.  It  simply  means 
that  there  has  been  a  change  here  or  there  from  the  original 
word  or  form  as  written  or  dictated  by  the  original  author.  The  ) 
Old  Testament  Canon  closed  about  400  B.  C.  (for  we  cannot  ac- 
cept the  hypothesis  of  the  origin  of  Daniel  or  of  some  of  the  "1 
Psalms  in  the  Maccabean  period),  and  our  oldest  Hebrew  man-  ^ 


1887.]  Problems  of  Old  Testament  Discussion.  341 

uscripts  date  from  the  tenth,  or  earliest  from  the  ninth  Christian 
century.  Accordingly  there  were  thirteen  or  fourteen  centuries 
between  the  original  writing  and  the  oldest  copies  of  them  in 
our  possession.  What  was  the  fate  of  the  text  during  these 
many  years  ?  It  was  copied  again  and  again,  undoubtedly  hun- 
dreds, even  thousands  of  times.  If  tens  of  thousands  of  vari- 
ants could  find  their  way  into  the  New  Testament  in  compara- 
tively few  centuries,  did  not  a  correspondingly  greater  number 
find  their  way  into  the  Old  Testament  text  in  a  period  of  per- 
haps three  times  its  length  and  in  a  book  three  times  the  size  of 
the  New  Testament  ?  The  probabilities  are  in  favor  of  the  af- 
firmative to  this  question.  That  such  corruptions  did  get  into 
the  text  and  that  the  Hebrew  text  as  we  have  it  now  has  its  va- 
riants and  consequently  its  errata,  no  honest  student  will  doubt.* 
They  actually  do  exist  and  it  is  suicidal  to  Christian  scholarship 
to  deny  them,  although  we  will  say  right  here  that  as  far  as  we 
have  been  willing  to  accept  any  as  certain,  they  are  even  of  less 
importance  than  the  variants  of  the  New  Testament.  But  the 
expectations  or  fears  that  the  Old  Testament  manuscripts  will 
show  up  a  larger  number  of  variants  than  the  New  Testament 
MSS.  did,  are  by  no  means  realized.  The  existing  manuscripts, 
on  the  contrary,  show  a  remarkable  agreement  even  down  to 
minutiae,  and  the  differences  between  them  are  few  and  insig- 
nificant. The  voluminous  comparisons  of  Hebrew  manuscripts 
made  by  Kennicott  in  1776-1780,  who  examined  about  600 
manuscripts  and  40  of  the  old  and  more  accurate  printed  texts, 


*It  will  be  impossible  here  to  point  out  and  illustrate  the  facts  under 
this  head.  The  student  will  find  them  easiest  by  reading  carefully  the 
historical  books,  especially  Joshua  and  Samuel,  as  also  Chronicles  :  Keil, 
the  most  conservative  critic  of  the  Old  Testament  in  our  day,  in  com- 
menting on  Josh.  8  :  13,  acknowledges  that  there  is  a  mistake  here,  as 
he  does  at  a  number  of  other  places  in  the  book  of  Joshua,  and  says 
(p.  86  of  the  English  translation,  note):  "We  need  have  no  hesitation 
in  coming  to  the  conclusion  that  there  is  a  mistake  in  the  number  given 
in  verse  3,  as  the  occurrence  of  such  mistakes  in  the  historical  books  is 
fully  established  by  a  comparison  of  the  numbers  given  in  the  books  of 
5amuel  and  Kings  with  those  in  the  books  of  Chronicles,  and  is  admit- 
ted by  every  commentator." 

Vol.  XVII.     No.  3.  43 


342  Problems  of  Old  Testament  Discussion.  [July 

and  of  de  Rossi,  1 784-1788,  who  examined  many  others,  showed 
that  all  existing  manuscripts  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  substan- 
tially agree  in  their  readings,  which  of  course  does  not  exclude 
the  fact  that  there  were  quite  a  number  of  unimportant  variants. 
The  natural  conclusion  from  these  premises  would  be  that  this 
state  of  affairs  shows  a  remarkable  care  on  the  part  of  the  Jews 
in  preserving  the  integrity  of  their  sacred  books.  This  suppo- 
sition would  receive  support  from  the  well  known  fact  that  spe- 
cial students  of  the  Scriptures  formed  a  leading  class  in  Israel 
as  early  as  Christ's  day,  and  that  later  at  the  various  schools  at 
Babylon,  Tiberias,  Janina,  and  elsewhere  the  very  iotas  and  tit- 
tles of  these  writings  were  valued  as  gold,  and  the  fruits  of  this 
minute  study  of  the  words  of  Scripture  were  laid  down  by  these 
men,  called  Massoretes,  in  the  Massora.  So  great  is  this  agree- 
ment that  even  the  so-called  Codex  Petropolitanus,  published 
by  Strock  in  1876,  which  contains  the  so-called  Babylonian 
punctuation,  and  represents  a  school  of  texts  different  from  the 
ordinary  Hebrew  manuscripts,  in  the  book  of  Ezekiel,  accord- 
ing to  the  searching  examination  of  Cornill,  contains  only  six- 
teen real  variants  from  the  common  Hahn  edition  of  the  Hebrew 
Bible.*  This,  however,  is  not  the  conclusion  which  more  ad- 
vanced investigators  have  drawn  from  these  facts.  Instead  of 
accepting  this  as  a  proof  of  the  superior  character  of  our  He- 
brew manuscripts,  they  maintain  that  it  is  really  a  proof  of  their 
inferiority.  The  leading  advocate  of  this  thesis  is  Lagarde,  one 
of  the  shrewdest  scholars  of  this  century.  He  says  that  '*all 
our  Hebrew  manuscripts  of  the  Old  Testament  are  based  upon 
one  single  copy  [or  prototype],  whose  very  correction  of  mis- 
takes in  writing  are  faithfully  copied  as  corrections,  and  whose 
imperfections  they  have  adopted."!  ^^  this  proposition  is  cor- 
rect, then  all  our  Hebrew  manuscripts  combined  have  for  text- 
critical  purposes  the  value  of  only  a  single  manuscript.  La- 
garde's  standpoint  has  been  adopted  by  quite  a  number  of  schol- 
ars, Cornill  going  so  far  as  to  say  that  it  is  proved  beyond  a 
doubt.     The  proposition,  however,  is  anything  but  proved  ;  to  .  ^ 

*Cf.  Cornill,  Das  Buck  Ezechiel.,  1886,  Prolegomena,  p.  9.  J 

fCf .  Lagarde,  Aumerkungen  zur  Griecheschen  Uebersetzung  der  Pro-   \ 
verbien,  1863,  p.  i  sq. 


1887.]  Problans  of  Old  Testament  Discussion.  343 

do  this  has  never  been  attempted  in  extenso  by  any  one.  The 
character  of  the  Hebrew  manuscripts  do  not  require  such  a 
strange,  almost  impossible  theory,  that  they  are  all  descendants 
from  one  parent  manuscript  from  the  days  of  the  Emperor  Ha- 
drian, and  the  story  which  Lagarde  unearthed  out  of  an  old 
Arabic  Midrash  of  an  archetypal  copy  from  the  siege  of  Bether, 
can  scarcely  be  entitled  to  serious  consideration.  It  would  prob- 
ably never  have  been  brought  forth  from  the  tomb,  if  the  sub- 
stantial agreement  of  the  Hebrew  manuscripts  were  not  such  a 
disagreeable  fact  that  it  must  be  explained  somehow  without  ad- 
mitting the  solidity  and  correctness  of  the  Hebrew  tradition  of 
the  text.  The  point  sub  judice  .is  entirely  too  fundamental  to 
admit  of  acceptance  unless  better  substantiated  than  it  is  at 
present.  But  be  this  all  as  it  may,  the  existence  of  certain  cor- 
ruptions in  the  Hebrew  text  is  a  fixed  fact,  and  being  a  fact  the 
textual  criticism  has  its  work  to  do  for  the  Old  as  well  as  it  has 
for  the  New  Testament.* 

Of  course  the  next  question  in  importance  is  as  to  the  num- 
ber and  character  of  the  corruption  of  the  text.  For  we  have 
an  older  Old  Testament  than  the  Hebrew,  one  that  is  itself  at 
least  thirteen  hundred  nearer  to  the  close  of  the  Old  Testament 
canon  and  whose  text  is  authenticated  at  least  six  hundred 
years  earlier.  We  refer  to  the  Septuagint,  or  Greek  version  of  the 
Seventy.  In  many  places  the  LXX.  presents  the  same  text  as 
the  Hebrew,  as,  e.  g.,  in  the  Pentateuch;  in  other  places  it  devi- 
ates considerably,  as,  e.  g.,  in  Daniel,  Ezekiel,  Job.  The  ques- 
tion accordingly  arises  which  of  the  two  is  the  better  and  more 
original  text  when  they  do  not  agree.  The  age  of  the  LXX.  as 
also  the  noteworthy  fact  that  the  New  Testament  throughout, 

*That   in  the  course  of   the  centuries  the  Hebrew  text  did  suffer 
changes  of  more  or  less  importance,  is  acknowledged  by  the  Massoretes 
themselves.    When  these  literalists  did  their  work  on  the  Hebrew  text, 
they  found  forms  which  they  knew  to  be  incorrect  but  which  their  rev- 
erence for  the  letter  would  not  permit  them  to  change.     Accordingly 
«   they  added  the  vowels  of  their  corrections  to  the  old  consonants  of  the 
^traditional  text  and  added  the  consonants  of  their  own  suggestion  and 
A;orrection  to  the  bottom  of  the  page.     Hence  our  Qre  and ktib.     The 
/  corrections  of  the  Massoretes  are,  however,  not  always  better  than  the 
traditional  forms. 


344  Problems  of  Old  Testament  Discussion.  \}^Y 

both  Christ  and  the  Apostles,  quotes  generally  according  to  the 
Septuagint,  and  only  exceptionally  according  to  the  Hebrew, 
i.  e.,  make  a  new  translation  from  the  Hebrew,  would  seem  to 
indicate  that  the  Septuagint  as  a  whole  has  preserved  the  origi- 
nal text  in  its  greater  purity.  It  would  however,  be  folly  to  jump 
to  such  a  general  conclusion.  The  Septuagint  is  a  translation 
of  very  unequal  merit,  and  then  its  exact  character  has  not  yet 
been  settled,  there  being  a  number  of  recensions  of  it,  and  the 
original  LXX.  has  not  yet  been  restored.  Accordingly  nothing 
remains  but  to  compare  the  separate  passages  of  the  LXX.  with 
the  Hebrew  readings  and  then  determine  as  soberly  and  cau- 
tiously as  possible,  which  reading  is  critically  the  more  correct, 
in  case  the  two  do  not  agree.  It  will  be  time  enough  to  gener- 
alize when  this  patient  but  necessary  work  has  been  done.  But 
taking  facts  as  they  are  it  is  equally  undeniable  that  in  many 
places  the  Hebrew  presents  a  better  text  than  does  the  Greek, 
as  also  that  in  some  places  at  least  the  Greek  is  better  than  the 
Hebrew.  The  first  proposition  will  be  readily  yielded,  and  is 
proved  by  a  mere  reference  to  the  translation  of  Job.  The  latter 
can  be  proved  readily  by  a  reference  to  the  books  of  Samuel, 
though  the  superiority  of  the  LXX.  is  claimed  for  others  also. 
We  can  give  here  only  one  example  to  show  how  correct  this 
proposition  is.  Between  Joshua  15,  59  and  60,  the  Greek  text 
inserts  a  fifth  group  of  cities  in  Judah  not  found  in  the  Hebrew 
text.  This  group  embraces  cities  around  Jerusalem,  which  are 
nearly  all  cities  of  importance,  of  fifteen  of  which  the  ruins 
have  been  found,  and  it  is  simply  impossible  that  the  writer  of 
this  catalogue  should  have  omitted  them  from  his  lists.  The 
omission  in  the  Hebrew  is  readily  explained,  as  the  same  word 
closes  V.  59,  and  also  the  missing  section,  and  the  copyist  took 
the  latter  for  the  former.* 

The  tendency  now  among  text-critical  scholars,  especially  in 
Germany,  is  to  overestimate  the  literary  and  historical  excel- 
lency of  the  Septuagint.  This  is  wholly  the  cases  in  Lagarde, 
i\\e  facile  pnnceps  \n  this  department,  and  his  promising  pupil, 
Cornill.      The  latter's  critical   edition  of  the  text  of    Ezekiel, 

*Cf.  Keil,  ad  1. 


\ 


1887.]  Problems  of  Old  Testament  Discussion.  345 

published  last  year,  is  the  only  systematic  attempt  in  late  years 
on  the  larger  scale,  to  put  to  practice  what  the  text-critics  have 
been  preaching  all  along.  He  has  done  painstaking  work,  but 
he  has  so  seriously  modified  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  prophet, 
on  the  basis  chiefly  of  the  Greek,  that  he  reduces  the  bulk  of 
the  text  considerably.  He  has  gone  far  beyond  reasonable 
limits.  A  careful  student  of  the  O.  T.  text  will  take  the  Mas- 
soretic  text  as  the  basis,  and  if  any  changes  are  necessary,  make 
them  only  when  absolutely  compelled  to  do  so  by  the  facts  in 
the  case.  We  have  no  doubt  that  when  all  the  text-critical  ap- 
pliances that  can  justly  be  employed  in  the  work  have  in  a 
reasonable  and  correct  manner  been  put  to  the  Old  Testament' 
text,  it  will  remain  substantially  the  same  as  we  have  it  now, 
although  in  many,  possibly  hundreds  of  cases,  changes  of  lesser 
importance  may  be  made.  We  are  no  prophet  nor  the  son  of  a 
prophet,  but  it  seems  clear  that  Old  Testament  textual  criticism 
will  not  demand  such  sacrifices  as  has  New  Testament  textual 
criticism  with  its  removal  of  the  doxology  in  the  Lord's  Prayer, 
its  rejection  of  the  Trinity  passage  in  St.  John's  Epistle,  &c. 
In  the  nature  of  the  case  it  cannot  reach  reliable  conclusions  of 
so  radical  a  nature.  Its  work  is  more  difficult  than  New  Testa- 
ment text  criticism  is.  For  it  the  MSS.  are  only  of  secondary 
importance,  and  the  versions,  the  Septuagint,  the  Peshito,  the 
Old  Vulgate,  the  Targums,  are  the  leading  aids.  It  works  with 
its  own  tools,  and  these  are  by  no  means  as  sharp  as  were  those 
that  cut  off  such  chips  in  the  New  Testament  text.* 

As  yet  this  whole  discipline  is  in  its  infancy.  This  was 
clearly  shown  to  be  the  case  at  least  in  America  by  the  discus- 
sions following  the  appearance  of  the  Revised  Version  of  the 
Old  Testament  two  years  ago.  Specialists  and  scholars  in  this 
department  are  not  yet  perfectly  agreed  as  to  the  correct  prin- 
ciples and  the  proper  methods  that  should  control  these  re- 
searches. The  science  is  yet  groping  and  in  a  tentative  state. 
But  lower  criticism  has  a  great  work  to  do,  to  restore  in  every 
particular  the  ipsissima  verba  of  the  revealed  word.     For  that 


//  *The  whole  matter  of  Old  Testament  text  criticism  is  discussed  fully, 
ably,  but  from  a  somewhat  radical  standpoint,  in  the  excellent  Prole- 
gomena to  Cornill's  Edition  of  Ezekiel. 


346  Problems  of  Old  Testament  Discussion.  *  [July 

reason  even  the  most  conservative  of  conservatives  should  en- 
courage its  efforts. 

The  next  step  in  the  critical  process  is  to  examine,  in  the  light 
of  all  aids  that  can  be  brought  to  bear  upon  the  subject,  the 
text  which  lower  or  textual  criticism  has  confirmed  or  corrected. 
This  is  called  by  that  much  misunderstood  and  maligned  term 
of  ^'higher  criticism."  The  idea  is  often  met  with,  that  a  higher 
critic  is  one  who  thinks  himself  endowed  with  higher  acumen 
and  wisdom  than  the  ordinary  man,  by  virtue  of  which  he  can 
analyze  and  argue  the  word  of  truth  out  of  existence.  No  more 
foolish  blunder  could  be  made.  Higher  criticism  consists  sim- 
ply in  taking  a  Bible  text,  and  focusing  on  it  all  the  rays  of  light 
that  a  knowledge  of  the  author,  his  time,  the  character  of  the 
composition,  the  historical  background  of  the  composition,  in 
short,  all  the  external  and  internal  aids  that  can  possibly  be 
secured,  and  in  the  illumination  thus  secured  to  examine  into 
the  length,  breadth  and  depth  of  a  passage  or  book.  It  is  the 
same  literary  process  to  which  the  classical  student  resorts  if  he 
would  interpret  his  Homer  or  Cicero  thoroughly.  Higher  criti- 
cism has  been  practiced  by  the  Church  from  the  beginning,  and 
is  practiced  by  all,  and  must  be  practiced,  if  exact  and  respecta- 
ble Bible  work  is  to  be  done.  Never  has  there  been  a  more 
sweeping  piece  of  higher  criticism  seen  than  was  practiced 
when  the  Church  of  the  Reformation  threw  away,  as  being  not 
a  revelation  of  God,  the  Apocrypha  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Professor  Greene,  of  Princeton,  the  most  conservative  Old  Testa- 
ment scholar  in  America,  is  as  much  a  higher  critic  as  are  Pro- 
fessors Wellhausen  and  Kuenen.  Abusus  non  tolit  usuin,  and 
higher  criticism,  properly  employed  as  the  handmaid  of  faith, 
is  one  of  the  noblest  of  theological  disciplines,  as  it  arrives  at 
the  elucidation  of  the  truth  of  God's  revelation.  It  may  have 
produced  hay  and  stubble  in  abundance  of  late  years,  but  it  has 
also  brought  forth  gold  and  silver.  If  neological  and  rational- 
istic theology  has  laid  claim  to  a  monopoly  in  this  field,  it  is  the 
duty  of  orthodox  and  conservative  seekers  for  the  truth  to  prove 
that  they  have  not  lawful  claims  to  this.  A  fair  and  honest, 
search  for  truth  can  only  confirm  it ;    if  others  have  not  bee 


7' 

i 


1887.]  Problems  of  Old  Testament  Discussion.  347 

fair  in  their  researches,  it  is  the  duty  of  beUeving  scholars  to 
hold  up  their  unfairness  to  merited  rebuke. 

The  starting  point  and  key-note  of  higher  criticism  in  its 
modern  phase,  in  so  far  as  it  is  a  subject  of  controversy,  is  the 
literary  analysis  of  the  Pentateuch.  When  in  1757  the  Roman 
Catholic  professor  and  physician  Astruc  published  his  hypothe- 
sis that  the  peculiar  use  made  in  Genesis  of  the  words  Elohim 
and  Jehova  for  God  indicated  that  Moses  had  used  a  number  of 
literary  documents  in  the  composition  of  the  book  of  Genesis, 
he  set  a  little  ball  rolling  that  has  now  become  a  critical  ava- 
lanche, covering  the  whole  Old  Testament.  The  discussion  as 
to  the  literary  analysis  of  Genesis,  and  then  of  the  other  books 
of  Moses,  and  then  of  the  Hexateuch,  i.  e.,  the  Pentateuch  in- 
cluding Joshua,  has  been  going  on  steadily  ever  since.  In  Ger- 
many and  Holland,  where  men  have  been  engaged  in  this  work 
the  most,  a  substantial  unanimity  of  opinion  has  been  reached. 
As  far  as  we  know  of  Professor  Keil,  in  Leipzig  (^not  connected 
with  the  University  there)  and  Bachmann,  of  Rostock,  are  the 
only  scholars  who  do  not  accept  the  documentary  theory  as  a 
fixed  result  of  the  investigations  of  more  than  one  hundred 
years.  Many  in  P^ngland,  as  Driver,  Robertson  Smith  and  oth- 
ers, and  some  in  America,  as  Briggs,  Toy  and  others,  also  ac- 
cept the  analysis.  With  regard  to  the  analysis  itself  there  is 
also  a  somewhat  remarkable  agreement  among  scholars  who 
occupy  otherwise  the  most  opposite  position.  Delitsch,  Sr.,  of 
Leipzig,  divides  the  Pentateuch  into  virtually  the  same  elements 
that  Kuenen  accepts,  although  the  former  is  a  humble  believer 
in  the  truth  of  revelation,  the  ^^atter  is  a  rabid  rationalist.  They 
believe  with  analysts  in  general,  that  the  Hexateuch  is  com- 
posed of  a  Jehovistic  document,  combined  with  an  Elohistic 
one,  and  found  chiefly  in  the  historical  portion  of  Genesis  and 
Exodus ;  then  the  famous  Priest  Codex,  or  Levitical  work,  con- 
taining the  whole  Levitical  system,  and  found  chiefly  in  the 
last  chapters  of  Exodus,  the  whole  of  Leviticus,  and  the  open- 

^  ing  chapters  of  Numbers,  but  represented  also  in  the  historical 
Vecords  of  Genesis  and  Exodus ;  then  the  legal  portion  of  the 
iOOok  of  Deuteronomy.     All  these  elements  were  worked  to- 

/gether  and  combined  by  an  editor.     Critics  claim  to  be  able  to 


34^  Problems  of  Old  Testament  Discussion.  [July 

distinguish  in  nearly  every  case  to  which  source  tliis  or  that 
chapter  or  verse  is  to  be  attributed.  It  is  represented,  that  He- 
brew historiography,  differing  from  Indo-European,  does  not  take 
the  sources  of  information  and  work  them  up  in  the  language  of 
the  author,  but  merely  takes  extracts  from  these  sources  and 
places  them  side  by  side  in  their  original  form,  but  seldom 
changing  a  form  or  word.  In  this  way  an  historic  mosaic  is 
produced,  the  various  blocks  in  which  can  easily  be  recognized. 
The  question  of  an  analysis  of  the  Pentateuch  is  one  of  funda- 
mental importance  for  an  appreciation  of  the  Old  Testament 
problem  of  the  day.  In  many  circles  it  is  considered  as  a  tra- 
dition of  criticism  that  no  longer  requires  any  proof.  No  one 
who  has  not  examined  the  books  of  Moses  word  for  word  in  the 
light  of  the  claims  offered  by  the  analysts  can  form  any  idea 
of  the  plausibility  of  the  argument  advanced.  For  it  would  be 
silly  to  reject  in  advance  the  possibility  of  such  an  analysis  as 
heterodox  or  not  permissible.  Even  as  the  supposition  that 
Moses  wrote  the  whole  Pentateuch  as  we  have  it  now,  it  isstill 
possible,  and  even  probable,  that  in  the  composition  of  the  Gen- 
esis he  made  use  of  older  documents,  which  the  inspiring  spirit 
taught  him  how  to  utilize.  Indeed  the  Pentateuch  does  quote 
at  least  one  older  book,  the  Book  of  the  Just.  Nor  is  it  im- 
possible that  of  these  sources  which  Moses  may  have  used,  the 
one  employed  the  name  of  Elohim  for  God  and  the  other 
Jehovah.  A  sneering  rejection  of  an  P^lohistic  or  Jehovistic 
writing  is  simply  an  indication  of  ignorance  and  prejudice  The 
question  is  simply  one  of  literary  research.  Do  the  facts  as 
presented  in  Genesis,  or  in  the  other  books  of  the  Pentateuch, 
warrant  the  assumption  that  we  have  combined  in  them  a  num- 
ber of  older  documents  or  sources?  No  doctrine  of  inspiration, 
however  stringent  or  orthodox,  can  decide  this  question.  The 
facts  alone  must  do  it.  In  regard  to  the  books  after  Genesis  the 
problem  is  somewhat  different.  It  seems  as  though  a  rejection 
of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  could  not  be  avoided 
if  the  documentary  theory  is  accepted  here.  It  is  barely  possi-  i 
ble  to  unite  the  two,  but  it  is  hard  work.  But  a  question  muchjT 
discussed  is  whether  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,A 
as  this  first  expression  in  the  latter  books  of  the  Old  Testament  *- 


1 887.]  Problems  of  Old  Testament  Discussion.  349 

and  in  the  words  of  Christ  and  of  the  New,  really  means  that 
Moses  is  actually  the  writer  of  every  word  of  the  Pentateuch  in 
the  present  shape  and  form  of  the  books.  There  are  many 
reverent  students  of  God's  word  who  claim  that  a  fair  exegesis 
does  not  hold  out  the  affirmative ;  that  Moses  was  indeed  the 
great  and  original  lawgiver,  but  that  this  does  not  exclude  the 
possibility  that  God  may  later  have  given  other  laws  which  were 
added  to  the  Mosaic  code  and  formed  one  body  with  it.  Whether 
the  point  is  well  taken  or  is  merely  a  Notbehelf  to  give  the 
analysts  of  the  later  books  a  Scriptural  foothold  is  hard  to  say. 
If  it  is  once  clear  that  Christ  really  teaches  that  the  lawgiver 
Moses  is  actually  the  literary  author  of  the  whole  Pentateuch  in 
its  present  shape,  then  the  question  is  settled  for  every  true 
Christian  scholar.  The  Master  has  spoken  and  human  wisdom 
must  be  silent.  He  is,  if  not  a  doctor  criticus,  at  any  rate  a  doc- 
tor veritatis.  The  natural  interpretation  of  the  New  Testament 
would  seem  to  bear  out  the  position  that  He  does  teach  the 
Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  ;  hence  the  onus  probandi 
is  on  the  shoulders  of  those  who  deny  this.  It  is  recognized 
to  be  so  too,  at  least  silently  by  the  fact  that  they  are  the  party 
who  consider  it  their  duty  to  prove  that  they  are  in  harmony 
with  the  New  Testament.  But  the  matter  cannot  be  decided 
hastily.  It  takes  patient  scholarship  and  prayerful  faith  to  come 
to  a  satisfactory  conclusion ;  and  he  will  be  the  slowest  to  con- 
demn those  opposed  to  him  who  is  best  acquainted  with  the 
facts  in  the  case  and  feels  the  deepest  interest  in  and  reverence 
for  the  true  authority  of  God's  holy  word.  That  the  traditional 
view  concerning  the  authorship  or  age  of  this  or  that  book  of 
the  Bible  must  be  correct,  cannot  be  asserted  a  priori.  The 
possibility  of  error  must  be  admitted.  The  Church  before  the 
Reformation  for  more  than  one  thousand  years  was  fully  con- 
vinced that  the  Apocrypha  were  the  revealed  words  of  God. 
The  reformers  showed  by  research  and  argument  that  this  was 
not  the  case.  In  Galileo's  day  the  standard  interpretation  of 
»  the  day  claimed  that  the  Bible  taught  that  the  earth  was  the 

;entre  of  the  solar  system.     A  renewed  examination  showed 
lat  the  Bible  made  no  such  claim,  and  that  current  opinion  was 
.       Vol.  XVII.     No.  3.  44 


350  Problems  of  Old  Testament  Discussion.  [July 

in  error.  And  thus  too  from  the  very  outstart  a  general  denial 
of  every  view  in  Isagogics  differing  from  the  traditional  is 
neither  reasonable  nor  just.  Accordingly  the  claims  of  higher 
criticism  in  this  regard  is  entitled  to  a  respectful  hearing.  In 
whatever  point  they  are  wrong  they  can  there  be  refuted. 

But  when  the  next  step  is  taken  and  on  the  basis  of  an  anal- 
ysis of  the  Pentateuch,  the  attempt  is  made  to  reconstruct  the 
history  of  Israel's  religion  and  worship,  the  leading  scholars  are 
sorely  divided  against  each  other.  They  cannot  agree  as  to  the 
historic  order  and  the  age  to  which  the  various  elements  of  com- 
posing the  Pentateuch  are  to  be  assigned  and  hence  not  on  the 
religious  scheme  of  which  they  are  the  exponents,  although 
other  factors  also  than  the  mere  analysis  of  the  Pentateuch  enter 
into  the  construction  of  this  scheme.  The  great  critical  ques- 
tion is  as  to  the  age  of  the  Priest-Codex,  containing  what  may 
technically  be  called  all  the  entire  legal  features  of  Mosaism. 
Up  to  a  comparatively  recent  period,  it  was  the  general  consen- 
sus of  scholars  that  it  was  the  oldest  of  the  Pentateuchal  docu- 
ments, and  that  accordingly  a  developed  Levitical  system  stood 
at  the  head  of  the  theocratic  development.  Of  late  the  leading 
advanced  men  in  this  line  have  turned  this  matter  squarely 
around,  and  affirm  that  the  Levitical  system  is  the  latest  in  the 
growth  of  religious  thought  in  Israel,  dating  the  Priest-Codex 
even  as  late  as  the  exile  or  Ezra.  The  ostensible  reason  for  this 
revolutionary  procedure  is  the  argumentum  ex  silentio.  It  is  a 
well  known  fact  that  in  the  pre-exile  age,  even  in  the  days  of 
the  high  religious  development  under  David  and  Solomon,  the 
ideals  of  the  Mosaic  law  were  not  realized,  but  that  even  men  of 
God,  like  Samuel  and  David,  and  this  too  with  the  seeming  ap- 
proval of  Jehovah,  acted  contrary  to  the  clear  and  explicit  com- 
mands of  the  Levitical  law,  as,  e.  g.,  in  their  sacrifices.  From 
this  it  is  argued  that  this  law  could  not  have  been  in  existence 
at  the  time  of  David  or  Samuel.  The  facts  in  the  case  are  un- 
deniable, but  the  logic  is  seriously  at  fault.  An  argumcntiiui  ex 
silentio,  uncorroborated  by  other  evidences,  proves  nothing.  On  , 
the  same  line  of  proof  we  could  argue  that  the  Pharisees  ii/ 
Christ's  day  did  not  have  the  Old  Testament  and  that  the  RomA 
ish  Church  in  the  sixteenth  century  did  not  possess  the  Bible,  \ 


1887.]  Problems  of  Old  Testament  Discussion.  351 

as  in  both  cases  confession  and  life  were  notoriously  in  conflict 
with  these  books. 

But  the  controlling  factor  in  the  construction  of  the  new  reli- 
gious scheme  is  rather  the  philosophical  idea  of  natural  devel- 
opment. According  to  Kuenen's  own  statements,  he  recognizes 
in  Christianity  and  Judaism,  two  very  important  religions,  noth- 
ing less  but  also  nothing  more.  In  kind  and  essence  they  differ 
nothing  from  the  religions  of  other  people.  Hence  in  origin, 
character  and  development  the  Old  Testament  religion  is  purely 
naturalistic,  and  in  no  wise  the  result  of  a  revelation  from  God. 
When  the  facts  of  the  Old  Testament  will  not  bend  to  this  hy- 
pothesis, the  critics  break  them.  It  would  take  a  cyclopaedia  of 
a  half  dozen  volumes  to  mention  and  criticise  the  methods,  de- 
structive of  facts  and  of  logic,  by  which  such  an  hypothesis  is 
made  to  agree  with  the  Old  Testament  records.  The  records, 
by  hook  or  crook,  must  fit  into  this  philosphical  Procrustean  bed. 

Over  against  this  revolutionary  reconstruction  conservative 
scholars  have  been  building  on  almost  the  same  literary  basis, 
e.  g.,  virtually  the  same  readjustment  of  the  records  of  the  Old 
Testament  books.  Even  Delitzsch  accepts  the  Levitical  code  as 
the  latest  in  the  complex  of  the  Pentateuchal  law,  but  places  it  at 
a  much  earlier  date.  Others  still  insist  upon  the  priority  of  this 
code  to  the  others.  The  conservatives  to  a  man  acknowledge 
the  divine  element  in  the  religion  of  the  Old  Testament  and  is 
the  revelation  of  this  religion,  modifying  their  scheme  of  the 
growth  of  this  religion  by  their  attitude  toward  the  Pentateuch 
problem.  Not  one  though  who  has  written  on  the  subject  of 
this  religious  growth,  as  far  as  we  know,  places  the  zvliole  Mo- 
saic law  at  the  head  of  this  religious  development.  In  nearly 
every  case  the  prophets  are  made  the  centre  of  this  religious 
growth,  both  internally  and  historically,  and  the  unfolding  of 
the  ideas  of  this  religion  placed  in  relation  to  this.  Thus,  to 
cite  the  latest  conservative  writer,  Dr.  Schultz,  in  Zockler's 
Handb'iich  der  theol.  Wissenschaften,  Vol.  I.  divides  the  Theol- 
\  ogy  of  the  Old  Testament  (and  naturally  also  its  history)  into 
'i^ie  theology  of  the  ante-prophetic  period,  of  the  prophetic  per- 
.4okl,  and  of  the  post-prophetic  period.  As  for  the  positive 
-  religious  contents  of  the  Old  Testament  these  conservative  re- 


352  Problems  of  Old  Testament  Discussion.  [July 

productions  do  not  stand  behind  the  traditional  expositions  ;  in- 
deed, at  places,  by  readjusting  a  book  to  its  correct  historical  sur- 
roundings they  enable  us  to  see  in  even  more  wonderful  beauty 
and  transparency  the  gracious  plans  of  Jehovah.  Many,  possi- 
bly the  most  of  American  scholars  will  not  agree  with  the  criti- 
cal standpoint  of  Brigg's  Messianic  Prophecy,  yet  no  intelligent 
reader  of  that  book  will  deny,  that  from  his  standpoint  many  an 
Old  Testament  passage  receives  a  richer  meaning  than  we  had 
been  accustomed  to  put  into  it.   • 

While  thus  the  Pentateuchal  problem  has  been  overshadow- 
ing all  other  Old  Testament  discussions,  both  for  good  and  for 
evil,  other  riddles  of  scarcely  less  difficulty  must  be  met  by  the 
student  of  higher  Biblical  criticism.  We  can  barely  mention 
them  here,  recalling  to  mind  only  the  questions  as  to  the  author 
and  age  of  Isaiah  40-66,  of  certain  chapters  in  Isaiah,  of  the 
age  of  Joel,  of  the  age  and  author  of  Daniel  and  the  close  of  the 
Old  Testament  Canon,  of  the  existence  of  Maccabean  Psalms. 
All  of  these  and  many  others  have  been  and  are  yet  being  dis- 
cussed. No  doubt  many  dangerous  views  have  been  expressed 
and  much  harm  done.  But  truth  has  also  been  the  gainer.  In 
the  very  nature  of  the  case  truth  must  eventually  gain  the  vic- 
tory, whatever  be  the  seeming  temporary  defeats.  Otherwise 
we  would  have  to  lose  our  faith  in  truth  and  in  the  God  of  truth 
as  the  controlling  power  in  the  history  of  his  Church.  Magna 
est  Veritas  et  praevalebit. 

Of  the  third  and  final  work  of  the  Bible  student,  although 
the  most  important,  we  need  say  little  or  nothing  here.  In  the 
exegesis  of  passages  and  books,  the  principles  of  the  various 
schools  that  appeared  antagonizing  each  other  already  in  the 
preliminary  work  also  appear.  Commentaries  from  the  stand 
points  of  the  various  schools  have  been  and  are  being  written, 
from  the  pronounced  confessional  and  traditional  standpoint  on 
the  one  hand,  to  the  outspoken  rationalistic  on  the  other,  with 
many  shades  and  shapes  of  compromising  thought  between. 
Fas  est  ab  hoste  doceri,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  con-  / 
troversies  between  the  schools  have  improved  our  conservative^ 
commentaries  also.     But  owing  to  the  peculiar  problems  of  the  1 


188/.]  Prohibition.  353 

hour  many  of  these  do  not  devote  their  strength  so  much  to  the 
unfolding  of  the  thoughts  of  revelation,  but  rather  to  the  prelim- 
inary literary  and  isogogical  problems  as  also  to  outward  feat- 
ures such  as  chronology,  geography,  &c.,  which  are  made  the 
objects  of  attack  by  the  destructive  critics  of  the  day.  For  this 
reason  many  of  the  older  commentaries  remain  the  best  to  our 
day  for  the  explanation  of  the  text  itself.  In  this  regard  we  do 
not  think  that  Luther's  Genesis  has  been  surpassed  (although  he 
may  put  a  little  too  much  of  the  New  Testament  into  the  Old) 
nor  Vitringa  on  Isaiah,  nor  perhaps  Calvin's  Commentaries  on 
the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  literary  activ- 
ity in  all  these  departments  of  Biblical  research  is  being  vigor- 
ously pushed,  and  a  calm  observer  cannot  fail  to  observe  that 
the  conservative  tendencies  are  constantly  gaining  ground  all 
along  the  line.  When  the  struggle  is  over,  there  will  be  a  sub- 
stantial victory  of  truth  to  record,  and  a  renewed  vindication  of 
the  Bible  as  the  v\'ord  of  revelation  from  God  to  man,  given  to 
teach  him  the  way  to  salvation  and  eternal  life. 


ARTICLE  III. 

PROHIBITION. 

By  Rev.  H.  C.  Haithcox,  A.  M.,  Ashland,  O. 

Does  Prohibition  prohibit  ?  Yes — No  !  Such  are  the  an- 
swers given  by  the  living  voice,  by  written  and  printed  testi- 
mony, and  by  the  facts  of  the  case.  Does  God's  law — "Thou 
shalt  not  bear  false  witness,"  "Thou  shalt  not  steal,"  "Thou  shalt 
not  kill,"  "Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery,"  "Thou  shalt  not 
covet" — prohibit?  Yes — No!  Yes,  where  the  head  and  the 
heart,  the  religious  and  moral  sentiments  are  right ;  no,  where 
they  are  not  right.  In  other  words,  where  the  religious  senti- 
ment is  right  God's  prohibitory  law  prohibits,  where  it  is  not 
right  it  does  not  prohibit.  It  is  just  so  with  civil  law.  Where 
le  sentiment  toward  government  is  right,  the  prohibitory  law 
oi  government  prohibits,  and  where  the  sentiment  is  wrong,  it 
does  not  prohibit.     Does  Prohibition  in  Maine,  in  Kansas,  in 


354  Prohibition.  [July 

Iowa,  in  Georgia,  prohibit?  Yes,  where  the  sentiment  con- 
cerning the  law  is  right ;  no,  where  that  sentiment  is  not  right. 
This  explains  the  contradictory  voices  we  often  hear,  and  those 
contradictory  reports  we  read.  Making  due  allowance  for  the 
color  that  may  be  given  those  answers  by  the  wish  that  may 
beget  and  clothe  the  thought,  prohibitory  law  from  God  and 
man  depends  for  its  effectiveness  upon  man's  sentiment  concern- 
ing it.  Whatever  the  theory  of  law,  whether  it  be  human  or 
divine,  whether  right  or  wrong,  this  is  the  stubborn  fact  that 
faces  us.  And  in  this  country,  in  this  government  of  the  people, 
the  law  must  have  respect  to  the  popular  sentiment  if  it  would 
not  be  a  dead  letter.  Ordinarily  a  few  persons  cannot  voice  a 
law  and  make  it  effective  unless  it  echo  the  voice  of  the  people. 

Now  here  is  a  law  called  Prohibition.  Two  or  three  States 
have  adopted  it.  The  many  States  have  not.  But  in  all  the 
States  there  are  citizens  in  favor  of  it.  The  question  is,  How 
many  ?  Are  the  majority  in  favor  of  it  ?  Whatever  our  opin- 
ion, we  do  not  know.  How  find  out?  Until  a  majority  are 
manifestly  for  it,  it  cannot  become  the  law  of  the  States.  How 
get  this  majority  ?  Or,  if  it  already  exist,  how  make  it  appear  ? 
If  it  does  not  exist,  how  create  it?  Thus  the  question  of  Pro- 
hibition, as  before  the  people  now,  is  a  question  of  method 
rather  than  of  right.  The  question  of  the  right  of  Prohibition 
belongs  to  the  past.  Ever  since  the  days  of  Chief  Justice  Ta- 
ney, of  Maryland,  the  right  of  Prohibition  has  been  taught  by 
the  State.  All  legislation  against  the  liquor  traffic  is  prohibitory 
in  character.  I  dare  say  we  all  believe  in  the  principle  of  Pro- 
hibition— the  prohibition  of  all  wrong,  against  Caesar  or  against 
God.  "The  law  was  added  because  of  transgression."  Why? 
To  prohibit  the  transgressor  from  doing  that  which  is  hurtful  to 
self  or  to  another.  Now  the  question  is  one  of  quantity  and  of 
method — how  much  Prohibition  do  we  want  ?     How  get  it  ? 

Then,  first,  how  much  Prohibition  do  we  want?     There  are 
two  answers  to  this  question.    One  is  given  from  the  stand-point 
of  a  prophet  of  God,  the  other  from  the  stand-point  of  a  prophet  - 
of  the  American  people.     The  latter  says :    We  want  all  th/ 
prohibition  that  will  be  for  the  public  good.    In  our  country  thc\ 
majority  are  the  law-makers — the  majority  are  the  public.    They  - 


354 

Iowa,  in 
cerning  t' 
This  exp' 
contradic 
color  tha' 
beget  an( 
man  dep< 
ing  it.     "^ 
divine,  w 
faces  us. 
the  law  r 
not  be  a 
law  and  i 
Now  \ 
have  ad( 
States  th 
many? 
ion,  we  c 
manifest) 
get  this  1 
If  it  doe 
hibition, 
rather  th 
belongs 
ney,  of 
the  State 
in  chara 
hibition- 
God.     " 
To  proh 
self  or  t< 
method- 
Then, 
two  ans\ 
of  a  pro] 
of  the  J 
prohibit 
majority 


DATE  DUE 

9P>^£i_-..       *.>».^^ 

HIGHSMITH  #4 

5230 

Primed 
In  USA 

r.,^   -WM-^ 


BS1160.S36 

Problems  of  Old  Testament  discussion 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00041   2249 


iii 


fh 


h 


<  A 


^7      i  W  * 


